Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-07-02
EXPLODING FALSE STATEMENTS.

Prof Richard A. Proctor, in exploding
some newspaper astronomy, says the state.
ment is preposterous that the "Star OF
Bethlehem" has been seen by an observ-
er in Kentucky. Five times since the
Nativity" has it been alleged that the star
has appeared. He points out that the con-
stellation of Cassiopeia, in which it is said
the new star has appeared, is said by the
discoveries to be in the "Milky Way"
nearly overhead little to the north of the
zenith, but five minutes study will convince
any one familiar with the constellation,
whether any new star has appeared or not,
and that the constellation is not "nearly
overhead, little to the north of the ze-
nith," but at midnight in Kentucky must
appear SO low down as to be hidden in the
haze of the horizon. He puts the Ken
lucky professor and all those who
believe in the return of the star, to the
blush by thus showing Tycho Brahe dis
covered in Cassiopeia remarkably bright
star, just 1915 years after the event in Beth
lehem. Assuming the 3l5 years to be the
period of the return, because it was
claimed to have been discovered five times
between the Nativity and Tycho Brahe's
discovery (l572); allowing for the err
ror in common dating of the Christian
era, and the year 1875 is arrived at; there
fore, 3l5 years gives the return period,
which added to 1915 gives 1887. Now,
says Prof Proctor, the Kentucky obsery-
er, desiring to be forehanded, ''discovers"
the star on time and Just as Brahe did
overhead at midnight in the constellation
Cassiopeia. But he here knocks the I'M
derpining from beneath the sensation, by
showing that Tyeho Brahe saw his star
nearly overhead in the middle of Novem-
Der, when Cassiopeia is near the zenith;
whereas the Kentucky man discovers
his star in the middle of MAY,
also overhead in Cassiopeia, when
that constellation is near the hori-
zon and not easy of observa-
ton, But Professor Proctor docs
not stop here. He shows that it is absurd
to say, as many papers are saying, that the
star will be brighter than at any previous
visitation-for it is a preposterous predic-
ton about star less known than any of
the 900 visible to the naked eye. 'HWhen
in opposition to the sun, and therefore
near the earth and brightest, it will be
seen even at MONDAY, shining with quick,
flashing light the entire year." say the
newspapers. For compact eongIomera-
ton of blunders, he adds, this sentence
surpasses everything | have ever read in
this style. "A star is not near the earth
when in opposition TO the sun, nor brighter
then than at any other time; the writer
of the surprising sentence imagined, doubt
less, that what he had heard about planets
was true also of stars. A star in Casio
peia cannot properly be said to be in oppo-
sition to the sun at any time. The ex-
preston is limited to planets and to stars
nearly on the suns track upon the star
sphere. The absurdity of imagining that
a star visible at MONDAY can be in opposi
ton to the sun will be obvious to every
one; planet or star really in opposition
to the sun is necessarily below the horizon
when he is high above the horizon. ia
star in Cassiopeia could be described at
any time as in opposition TO the sun, it
still could not be so for year, or for
season, or even for month";" In conclu-